MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161061572 · doi:10.1080/17415977.2014.995184

Robust inversion for material parameters identification from correlated outlying observations

2015· article· en· W2161061572 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Nawel Benaraba, Djilali Yebdri, F. Touati

Bibliographic record

VenueInverse Problems in Science and Engineering · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeophysical Methods and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversité de Moncton
KeywordsOutlierRobustness (evolution)Inversion (geology)Geodetic datumAlgorithmLeverage (statistics)Computer scienceMathematicsMathematical optimizationApplied mathematicsStatisticsGeologyGeodesy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, a novel robust inversion method for correlated observations (RIMCO) is proposed to determine the material parameters from correlated observations under the effect of outliers and leverage points. This method is based on a full equivalent weight matrix established from the original measurement weight matrix and an adapted full weight matrix with hard rejection to outliers. This equivalent weight matrix plays key role to refine the stochastic model, while keeping the original correlation of measurements unchanged on the one hand, and ensuring simultaneously high robustness and statistical efficiency of the proposed method, on the other hand. The performance of the proposed method is demonstrated by considering a rockfill dam as an example, where the material parameters are identified from geotechnical and geodetic measurements after achievement of the construction, and during the first filling up of reservoir. Results of comparison of RIMCO with least squares and M Huber methods concerning their robustness and efficiency are presented for various configuration options.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.105
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.147 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInverse Problems in Science and EngineeringSame topicGeophysical Methods and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207